University of Texas at San Antonio Engineering Building Phase II Project #

Transcription

1 University of Texas at San Antonio Engineering Building Phase II Project # Summary Report for Construction Phase Partnering November 1, 2007 Gary Kimble, M.A. Metta Zetty, M. Ed Monterey Oaks Blvd., #1618 Austin, Texas info@kimble-zetty.com

2 Page 2 of 16 Partnering Principles Open, Honest Communication Full Stakeholder Participation Mutual Respect and Trust Teamwork and Collaboration Accountability and Responsibility Innovation and Creative Problem Solving Issue and Conflict Resolution Shared Goals Fairness, Equity and Win-Win Thinking Quality, Safety and Good Service Evaluation, Recognition and Celebration Full Commitment to the Partnering Process and to the Partnering Values Have Fun! The Spirit of Partnering To partner is to act on our awareness of our interdependence. To partner is to serve, support and inspire the unleashing of everyone s full potential. It is based upon the belief that others are inherently able and that we serve each other best when we view ourselves as partners in the discovery of both our abilities. In doing so, we foster our own and other s growth and development. To partner is to act on our awareness of mutuality, to learn from each other and to learn together. To partner is to work together to serve self and others in pursuit of something greater than ourselves. Jill Janov

3 Page 3 of 16 University of Texas at San Antonio Engineering Building Phase II Construction Phase Partnering November 1, :00am 2:00pm Agenda Welcome Opening Comments Review Agenda Introductions Partnering Values Getting Started Project Overview Schedule Overview Patrick Rogers Dave Riker Patrick Rogers Rob McNicol Rob McNicol Getting the Job Done Communication Matrix & Issue Resolution Ladder Needs, Issues and Opportunities Action Planning and Agreements Furthering the Partnering Relationship Subsequent Meetings and Follow-up Ongoing Partnering Follow-up and Evaluation Conclusion Plus / Delta Review Closing Comments Workshop Evaluation

4 Engineering Building Phase II Construction Phase Partnering November 1, 2007 La Cantera 9:00am 2:00pm Page 4 of 16 Organization and Role Name Work Fax Mobile Dean, College of Engineering Mauli Agrawal mauli.agrawal@utsa.edu Bill Angrove bill.angrove@utsa.edu Chair, ECE Phillip Chen philip.chen@utsa.edu Fengshan Chen ff.chen@utsa.edu Assistant V.P., Facilities Polo Cervantes polo.cervantes@utsa.edu ECE Department Paul Cotae paul.cotae@utsa.edu Registrar Joe Cristoforo joe.cristoforo@utsa.edu Risk & Life Safety Manager John DeLaHunt john.delahunt@utsa.edu Asst. Dir., Engineering & Proj. Mgt. Robert Espinoza robert.espinoza@utsa.edu Safety Manager Richard Garza richard.garza@utsa.edu Director, Engineering & Proj. Mgt. Paul Goodman paul.goodman@utsa.edu Senior Project Manager Jonathan Jarrell jonathan.jarrell@utsa.edu Asst. Director, IT Max Hanners max.hanners@utsa.edu Vice Provost, Acad. & Fac. Support David Johnson david.johnson@utsa.edu Radiation Safety Officer Jim Lewis jim.lewis@utsa.edu Director, Ops. & Maintenance Joe Martin joe.martin@utsa.edu Laboratory Safety Officer Wendy McCoy wendy.mccoy@utsa.edu Chair, Mech. Engineering Dept. Stathis Michaelides stathis.michaelides@utsa.edu Director, EHS & RM Brian Moroney brian.moroney@utsa.edu Chair, Biomedical Engineering Anson Ong anson.ong@utsa.edu Chair, Civil Engineering At Papagiannakis at.papagiannakis@utsa.edu Assistant Chief of Police Dan Pena daniel.pena@utsa.edu Dean, College of Sciences George Perry george.perry@utsa.edu Associate V.P., Facilities Dave Riker dave.riker@utsa.edu Interim Chair, Physics & Astron. Eric Schlegel eric.schlegel@utsa.edu Director, Space Utilization Daniel Sibley daniel.sibley@utsa.edu Director, Academic Technology Mike Silva milo.silva@utsa.edu Captain, University Police Doug Sonego douglas.sonego@utsa.edu Denotes individuals present at the Partnering session

5 Engineering Building Phase II Construction Phase Partnering November 1, 2007 La Cantera 9:00am 2:00pm Page 5 of 16 Organization and Role Name Work Fax Mobile Project Coordinator John Webb william.webb@utsa.edu Construction Project Coordinator Rick Zamora richard.zamora@utsa.edu UT System OFPC Senior Interiors Coordinator Deborah Carruth dcarruth@utsystem.edu Construction Inspection Michael Coe mcoe@utsystem.edu Mechanical Engineer Devon Colvin dcolvin@utsystem.edu South Texas Program Manager Richard De Leon rdeleon@utsystem.edu Senior Project Manager Ken Krejci kkrejci@utsystem.edu Resident Construction Manager Rob McNicol rmcnicol@utsystem.edu Senior Construction Inspection Clancy Reilly creilly@utsystem.edu Project Manager Patrick Rogers progers@utsystem.edu Garza Bomberger Architects Principal Vaughn Bomberger vbomberger@gbarch.net Asst. Project Architect Frank Dunckel fdunckel@gbarch.net Project Architect/Manager David Torres dtorres@gbarch.net Consultants HMG Associates MEP Engineer Ernesto Castillo ecastillo@hmg-associates.com MEP Engineer Bill Harris bharris@hmg-associates.com MEP Engineer Brian Moore bmoore@hmg-associates.com MEP Engineer Angelus Vasquez cadept@hmg-associates.com Jaster-Quintanilla Civil Engineer Trey Zuehl tzuehl@jqsatx.com Structural Engineer Larry Rickels lrickels@jgsatx.com Sebesta Blomberg Commissioning Agent Bill Back bback@sebesta.com Denotes individuals present at the Partnering session.

6 Engineering Building Phase II Construction Phase Partnering November 1, 2007 La Cantera 9:00am 2:00pm Page 6 of 16 Organization and Role Name Work Fax Mobile Walbridge/Bartlett Cocke Vice President Don Greenwell dgreenwelljr@walbridge.com Asst. Project Manager Carlos Ibarra cibarra@bartlett-cocke.com Vice President SA Operations Jerry Hoog jhoog@bartlett-cocke.com Project Manager Nathan Olson nolson@bartlett-cocke.com Superintendent Don Windsor dwindsor@walbridge.com Subcontractors Dynamic Systems Inc. Contie Electric Simplex Scott Lamoureux Jeff Vogt Alan Warwas slamoureux@dynamicsys.com jvogt@dynamsys.com awarwas@dynamsys.com Tony Patrico apatrico@contielectric.com Rick Smith rsmith@contielectric.com Eric Smith ericsmith@tycoint.com Robert Miller robertmiller@tycoint.com Advanced Lab Concepts Ken James kjames@alc-corp.com Project Manager Mike Kousky mkousky@alc-corp.com Sebastian Salazar ssalazar@alc-corp.com Denotes individuals present at the Partnering session.

7 Page 7 of 16 Construction Phase Communication Matrix Randy Pawelek President Bartlett Cocke Don Greenwell Vice President Walbridge Vaughn Bomberger Principal Garza Bomberger Richard De Leon South Texas Program Manager OFPC Ken Krejci Senior Project Manager - OFPC Dave Riker Associate V.P., Facilities Admin. Jerry Hoog V.P. Operations-SA Walbridge/ Bartlett Cocke David Torres Construction Admin. Garza Bomberger Patrick Rogers Project Manager OFPC Paul Goodman Director, Engineering & Project Mangement Nathan Olson Project Manager Carlos Ibarra Asst. Proj. Manager Walbridge/ Bartlett Cocke Don Windsor George Castillo Superintendents Walbridge/ Bartlett Cocke Subcontractors Contie Electric Tony Patrico Rick Smith Dynamic Systems Scott Lamoureux Jeff Vogt Alan Warwas Simplex Eric Smith Robert Miller Advanced Lab Concepts Ken James Mike Kousky Sebastian Salazar Frank Dunckel Asst. Proj. Arch. Garza Bomberger Consultants HMG Associates Ernesto Castillo Bill Harris Brian Moore Angelus Vasquez MEP Engineers Jaster-Quintanilla Trey Zuehl Civil Engineer Larry Rickels Structural Engineer Sebesta Blomberg Bill Back Commissioning Agent Deborah Carruth Senior Interiors Coord. - OFPC Rob McNicol Resident Const. Manager -OFPC Clancy Reilly Michael Coe Const. Inspectors OFPC Engineering OFPC Robert H. Espinoza Asst. Dir., Engineering & Project Mangement Rick Zamora Jonathan Jarrell Const. Project Coordinators, Facilities Eng. Services Brian Moroney Dir., EHS & RM Max Hanners Asst. Director, IT Joe Martin Director, Ops. & Maint. Milo Silva Director, Acad. Tech. Doug Sonego Captain, Police Dept. Academic First Point of Contact: Daniel Sibley Director, Space Utilization Mauli Agawal Dean, Engineering Phillip Chen Chair, ECE Fengshan Chen Chair, M.E. & Biomedical Paul Cotae ECE Dept. Joe Cristoforo Registrar Richard Garza Safety Manager David Johnson Vice Provost Jim Lewis Radiation Safety Wendy McCoy Laboratory Safety Stathis Michaelides Chair, M.E. Anson Ong Chair, Biomed. Eng. At Papagiannakis Chair, civil Eng. George Perry Dean, College of Sciences

8 Page 8 of 16 Project & Schedule Overview Project History The project began in April 2004, with an RFQ for the architect. By December 2004, the programming was complete. However, in August 2005, the project was put on hold at design development phase. The project resumed in September 2006, and the delivery method was switched from CSP to CM at risk. Walbridge/Bartlett-Cocke came on board at 50% CDs. Walbridge/Bartlett-Cocke has provided invaluable project overview and preconstruction services (alternates, value engineering, etc.) Walbridge/Bartlett-Cocke also did an outstanding job reducing the project overrun, and produced a miracle by getting the GMP within the budget. The Notice to Proceed was issued in July Walbridge/Bartlett-Cocke has brought great value to this project. Project Schedule August 13, 2008 structure complete November 24, 2008 permanent power December 24, 2008 conditioned air May 4, 2009 exterior complete June 2009 substantial completion July 2009 final completion The project is on schedule now and may actually finish early.

9 Page 9 of 16 Discussion Issues Disposition Matrix The issues disposition matrix is working well. The goal is to continue to update and use this tool on an on-going basis. Minor issues are tracked at the project level through meeting minutes and at the field level with the project logs. Participate in the project meetings and to track the progress on safety issues. Project Management Charter Adhere to the agreements we have already made. Don t put OFPC on the spot they need 48 hours notice for inspections. Charter Addition (Paul G.) Timely review of submittals: the project team will proceed if not comments are received. Campus Disruptions Any activity resulting in campus disruptions requires significant notice: 7-14 days (the more the better). needs time to notify faculty and students about the changes to their routine. Err on the side of caution with plenty of advance notice (example: 2 weeks notice for fire lane). Building Envelope and Leaks The building envelope mock-up is quite extensive. There will be plenty of time to comment. The real challenge is with the attention to details during installation. Safety W/BC has been doing a great job. The team encourages everyone to speak up whenever they see a safety issue. User Space Requirements It has been hard to know the user space requirements with new incoming faculty not yet here. We will need 110 and 220 outlets in each room to accommodate a variety of uses and applications. As soon as new faculty come on board, check in with them about specific needs. Any major changes will require additional funding and engineering. The single point of contact for users is Daniel Sibley. Engineering Students Tour The civil engineering students appreciated the opportunity for site visits. To coordinate future site visits contact Rick Z. The celebration of the end of the Engineering Project will be on Monday, November 5 at 10:a.m. in the atrium. Engineering Drawings The engineering dean has a complete set of drawings. Contact Rick Z. to get access to the drawings you would like to see.

10 Page 10 of 16 Plan Questions Subcontractors need to document the answers they receive when getting clarification on design questions. Subcontractor Communication Subcontractors should not send directly to. All subcontractor communication should go to W/BC. All notices to protect lien rights need to go to Mike Murphy at the UT System. Nathan O. will notify the subs. Remember: Rick Z. is not the owner until the project is turned over to. The first owner s meeting had about 40 people. This highlights the importance of a single point of contact (Daniel Sibley) for. Changes At this stage of the project, changes often have significant schedule and cost impacts. will minimize changes to project or they will accept the impact Note: (Additional discussion items are listed in the Action Plans & Agreements tables on pages 13 & 14, and some of the above items are duplicated in those tables. All action plans and agreements from this meeting are in the tables.)

11 Page 11 of 16 Issues disposition matrix from OFPC Needs, Issues and Opportunities Minimum 48 hours notice for all inspections from OFPC. After resolution charter Pay close attention to details: OFPC - A/E - W/BC Sprinkler shop drawings minimum 30 days prior to installation from A/Es and W/BC Notify prior to making significant design or field changes that may impact the maintainability of the facility: A/E OFPC W/BC Require a single point of contact for the faculty Pay close attention to details: waterproofing, roof, windows, all openings: A/E OFPC W/BC Codes and contract documents Final buy-in on mock-up on decisions made by : A/E OFPC W/BC Maintain proper coordination of all contractor s work: W/BC Buy-in on project ownership: Need special space requirements from users well in advance of installation; i.e., high power lasers, equipment with heavy weight, equipment with high-energy needs that require special consideration, special chilled water requirements, etc. OFPC Safety awareness from W/BC, A/E & OFPC Communication: Shops Facilities OFPC W/BC Subs Timely schedule of events: W/BC 48 hours inspection notice W/BC pre-test and prep prior to owner inspections Adequate representation from A/Es and W/BC at inspections Timely review of submittals: if no comments are received in 2 weeks, proceed. Oversight/document review of building envelope roof, windows and skin from W/BC and A/Es Fire hydrant/fire line issue meeting with W/BC OFPC, and A/Es by 11/16/07 Garza Bomberger and Consultants Adherence to the contract documents Can small dimensional and coordination items be handled outside of the RFI process? phone call with memo record and as-built saves time, money and man-hours reduces magnitude of traffic Subcontractor coordination of drawings before fabrication floor by floor team review 1 week after submission conflict areas clouded coordination between trades on submittals

12 Page 12 of 16 Garza Bomberger and Consultants (continued) Think ahead two weeks to avoid crisis decisions/time Clarity of submissions data sheets that note (highlight) actual material identify variance from specifications Reasonable notice for meetings, inspections and observations Integrate commissioning into project schedule Substitutions due to schedule conflict, follow procedure for substitutions Call for inspections only when ready Walbridge/Bartlett Cocke Electronic submittal of shop drawings Construction inspections schedule Informal conflict resolution with follow-up documentation Concern on reluctancy to make decisions Full understanding of CDs (add alternates, ASIs, clarifications) Close off Paseo Define the commissioning agents roles. Subcontractors understanding of the substitution procedure End user operations prior to substantial completion Changes vs. plan in place Quantity of people involved in decision making Timely review of submittals and shop drawings, RFIs Subcontractors Lab equipment coordination: Subs W/BC Subs Information clarification: Subs W/BC AE/OFPC/ critical items: 2-3 working days (minimize the number of critical items) non-critical items: 5-7 working days Submittal/shop drawings approval: Subs W/BC AE/OFPC/ Turn-around time? Communication of schedule: W/BC Full participation of all subcontractors at MEP coordination meetings: Subs W/BC Subs Safe, clean jobsite: Subs W/BC Subs Electronic submissions: this will reduce paper copies and people can print what they need.

13 Issue Action Plans / Agreements Who When Points of Contact Design Team: Frank D. is the back-up for David T. cc Frank on all communication to David. Construction Manager: Carlos I. is the back-up for Nathan O. cc Carlos on all communication to Nathan. ; Rick Zamora POC for Facilities personnel : Daniel Sibley POC for Academic personnel Weekly Project W/BC and the subcontractors hold weekly coordination meetings Meetings Formal Review of Coordination Drawings and regular MEP coordination meetings. The team will have a formal review of the coordination drawings. W/BC with GBA & ETB & HMG. The plan will be to review floor by floor before any fabrication. This will prevent problems. Submittals The mechanical submittals will be turned in tomorrow, November 2. A submittal review meeting will be held in two weeks. Submittal turn-arounds in less than 2 weeks are great. Turnarounds of more than 4 weeks are difficult. W/BC will proceed if no comments are received within two weeks. No substitutions are allowed unless permitted by the specifications including cost-savings substitutions. Three copies of final submittals with A/E comments from GBA to. Patrick R., Rob M. and Nathan O. will review the electronic distribution options during the week of November 5 th and will implement a system project wide. RFIs Subcontractor should propose solutions with RFIs. W/BC moving the RFIs on to the A/E within 24 hours. Weekly coordination meeting helps to identify critical RFIs. Small Dimensional Changes Try to settle small changes with a phone call and a memo of record instead of using the RFI process. The memos could be sent to Rob M. and. Alternative: phone calls followed-up by a confirmation RFI, consolidating several small items on one RFI. Commissioning W/BC will incorporate commissioning into the schedule. The commissioning agents roles will be defined in a meeting after this meeting. David T. & Frank D. Nathan O. & Carlos I. Rick Z Daniel S. W/BC, Subs, Team Team W/BC OFPC & A/Es Team W/BC David T. Patrick R., Rob M. & Nathan O. Subs W/BC A/Es Team W/BC Team Page 13 of 16 Throughout project Weekly Meetings Floor by floor Nov. 2 Mtg. by Nov weeks Throughout project Week of Nov. 5 th As necessary Within 24 hours Throughout project Immediately After Partnering meeting

14 Issue Action Plans / Agreements Who When Mock-ups The building envelope mock-up is quite extensive. There will be plenty of time to comment. Mock-up agreements must be documented following the meeting. W/BC cannot make changes after the mock-up review if they affect cost without going through the Change Order review and approval process. User Space Requirements Final GMP Documents Fire Hydrant & Fire Lane Meeting With new faculty coming, it has been hard to know the user space requirements. Check in with new faculty as they come on board about specific needs. Any major changes will require additional funding and engineering. The single point of contact for users is Daniel Sibley. The final GMP involved multiple alternates and addendums. Everything needs to be documented, and everyone needs to be aware of the most recent approval changes. The team will hold a fire hydrant & fire lane issue meeting. has a resolution on the fire hydrant. W/BC does not want this to become a critical path item. OFPC & W/BC are waiting on feedback from Rick Z. Rick expects to reply to Rob M. during the week of November 5 th. Paseo Area Access For safety reasons, W/BC needs to limit access to the Paseo area on the east side of EB II. Nathan O. will submit a request with sketches to review and decide at the next owner s meeting. Rick Z. would like to walk the site in this area to better understand what is being requested. Campus Disruptions Any activity resulting in campus disruptions requires significant advance notice, 7-14 days. Subcontractor Communication All subcontractor communication should go to W/BC. Subcontractors should not send directly to. All notices to protect lien rights need to go to Mike Murphy at the UT System. Nathan O. will notify the subs. Team W/BC W/BC Team Daniel S. Team Team W/BC Rick Z. Rob M. W/BC W/BC OFPC W/BC & Rick Z. W/BC Subs W/BC Subs Subs UT System Nathan O. TBD Page 14 of 16 Following meetings As needed TBD Throughout project Immediately By Nov. 16 Week of Nov. 5 th TBD Next owner s meeting Immediately Throughout project Throughout project As needed Immediately

15 Page 15 of 16 Issue Resolution Ladder Walbridge/ Bartlett Cocke Garza Bomberger UT-OFPC Randy Pawelek Jerry Hoog Vaughn Bomberger Richard De Leon Ken Krejci Dave Riker Third Level Nathan Olson David Torres Patrick Rogers Rob McNicol Paul Goodman Robert Espinoza Second Level Don Windsor George Castillo David Torres Clancy Reilly Michael Coe Rick Zamora Jonathan Jarrell First Level Issue Resolution Ladder Guidelines 1. Resolve all issues at the field level, whenever possible. 2. Escalate issues up the ladder whenever: the partners cannot agree on a decision. the partners do not have the authority to make the decision. an issue is threatening to delay the project. an issue is threatening to damage the Partnering relationship. 3. Escalate unresolved issues as quickly as possible. Do not allow issues to fester. Deal with them immediately. 4. Escalate issues evenly up both sides of the ladder, and let go of the issue when it goes to the next level. 5. Agree to disagree, and disagree without being disagreeable. 6. Do not skip levels or leap-frog up the ladder. 7. Upper level partners should insist that the ladder (chain of command) be used. 8. Avoid swoop-downs by partners higher up in the chain of command. 9. Keep partners at lower levels informed of progress in the resolution process as it develops. 10. Return the agreed upon decision to field personnel as quickly as possible, once the issue is resolved.

16 Page 16 of 16 Plus / Delta Review + What Worked Well? It was good for us to see and identify each other. This is a great facility. We had the right people including subcontractors, the contractor, and OFPC. What Would You Change or Do Differently Some stakeholders were not present.